SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND ETHNICITY
William Simmons, Chair
Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate
March 1989
TO MEMBERS OF THE BERKELEY DIVISION:
Herewith the final report of the Division’s Special Committee on Education and Ethnicity,
chaired by Professor William Simmons of the Department of Anthropology. The Report
is the result of much thought, consultation, and research. The Committee deserves the
Division’s thanks.
The Committee on Educational Policy is preparing legislation that, if approved by the
Division, would implement the Committee’s proposal for a breadth requirement in
American Cultures. The general character of the proposal will be clear from pages 2-5
and 18-21 of the Report.
A forum discussion of the Report will take place on April 11 in the Heyns Room of the
faculty Club from 3:10-5:30 p.m. A second forum will be scheduled if necessary. The
Division will meet on April 25 in Booth Auditorium, Boalt Hall, beginning at 3:10 p.m. to
consider and to act on the legislation proposed by the Committee on Educational Policy.
The Notice of Meeting, including the proposed legislation, will be distributed in good
time.
J.L. Heilbron, Chair
Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate
University of California
1
March 29, 1989
Professor J.L. Heilbron, Chair
Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate
320 Stephens Hall
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720
Dear Professor Heilbron:
On behalf of the Special Committee on Education and Ethnicity, I am pleased to submit
our report and recommendations. We took account of faculty comments on the previous
proposal, as well as of a broad range of faculty and student opinion. We recommend a
one-semester breadth requirement to be satisfied by a series of courses from many
disciplines that will focus on important themes in United States history, society, and
ethnic diversity. In spirit this recommendation is akin to the existing American History
and Institutions requirement and is intended to provide our students with a
comprehensive understanding of the peoples and cultures that created our past and
present.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all members of the Special Committee
for the many months of concentrated work that they gave to this important task and to
the Senate Office staff for their constant support.
Sincerely,
William S. Simmons, Chair
Special Committee on Education and Ethnicity
Submitted by the Special Committee on Ethnicity and Education, March 28, 1989
William S. Simmons, Anthropology, Special Committee Chairman
Emeka Kalu Ezera, Student Member
Lawrence W. Levine, History
David Lloyd, English
Lily Wong Fillmore, Education
Charles Henry, Afro-American Studies
Mark Min, Student Member
Guadalupe Valdes, Education
Ling-Chi Wang, Asian American Studies
2
Report of the Special Committee
on
Education and Ethnicity
University of California at Berkeley
March 28, 1989
CONTENTS
PREFACE 1
RECOMMENDATION FOR AN AMERICAN CULTURES BREADTH REQUIREMENT 2
Proposed Change in Division Regulations 5
BACKGROUND TO THE RECOMMENDATION 6
I. Diversity and the student body 6
II. Campus racism 7
III. The debate in higher education 9
IV. Student critique of the curriculum 12
V. The present curriculum at Berkeley 14
VI. Curricular changes at other institutions 15
VII. The old proposal: Criticisms and response 18
VIII. Possible American Cultures courses 25
IX. Implementation 26
X. Selected bibliography 29
XI. Appendices 31
A. Cultural Pluralism Requirements at other Universities 31
B. Existing Graduation Requirements in the University, Schools and Colleges 35
C. Summaries of Possible American Cultures Courses 40
D. Consultation with Students, Faculty and Administrators 62
3
PREFACE
The Special Committee on Education and Ethnicity was created at the Spring 1987
Representative Assembly meeting of the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate by a
resolution offered by the Committee on Educational Policy. The Special Committee was
instructed to review existing campus ethnicity courses and to consider various ways of
improving awareness, knowledge, and understanding of ethnicity. Specifically, the
Committee was charged to:
a. analyze the academic issues that are relevant to education about cultural diversity
and ethnicity in the undergraduate curriculum;
b. include an assessment of existing relevant programs and courses on the Berkeley
Campus;
c. identify approaches which would enhance current educational efforts in this area,
including encouragement of academic innovations; and
d. take account of other Academic Senate evaluations of our program of undergraduate
education, especially those concerned with general education at the lower-division level.
The Committee began its work in late Fall 1987 and delivered its first report to the
Committee on Educational Policy on April 11, 1988. On April 25, 1988, the Committee
on Educational Policy endorsed the report and proposed amendments to the
Regulations of the Berkeley Division based upon the proposal for an American Cultures
breadth requirement. On May 10, 1988, the Berkeley Division voted to submit the
proposed legislation to a mail ballot. Subsequently it was learned that the Berkeley
Division had no provision in its by-laws for voting by mail ballot. The faculty voted at the
November 28, 1988, Academic Senate meeting to recommit the Special Committee on
Education and Ethnicity, and directed the Committee to submit a new proposal in Spring
1989.
4
RECOMMENDATION FOR AN
AMERICAN CULTURES BREADTH REQUIREMENT
American colleges and universities are in the midst of an intense debate over the
content and purpose of a liberal education. At the heart of this debate, which has spread
far into public intellectual life, are competing images of our identity and best interest as
a people. The intellectual concerns that ignited the debate have mainly to do with how
to understand American experience and represent it to American students. As two
commentators on the controversy recently noted, “The curriculum is a microcosm of the
culture: its inclusions and exclusions are an index of what the culture deems important.
A conflict over … what books to teach and how to teach them is a conflict over a
society’s vision of itself” (Graff and Cain 1989: 310).
American society is distinctive if not unique in the diversity of racial and ethnic groups
that shaped its early formation and that continues to shape its identity in the present.
This identity, and academic debates about our identity, reflect three processes, two of
which are encoded in our national motto, E Pluribus Unum. First, we are constituted by
people with historical traditions from Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, and
elsewhere. Second, these traditions have been reshaped by New World experience that
has impressed a new level of identity upon the whole. Thus, American culture derives
from its many constituent groups, but in their interaction on American soil it has been
redefined, both within each racial and ethnic tradition and at a level that transcends all
such traditions. The third process may be described as exclusion. The experiences of
exclusion and isolation have affected most groups in the United States although some
have experienced this over a longer time period and in qualitatively different ways than
others.
Throughout the greater part of our history, for reasons that have to do with relations of
class and privilege, the American university has reflected a narrow spectrum of
American diversity in its faculties, students, and curricula. Until very recently most
institutions of higher education in this country have been characterized by culturally and
racially homogeneous faculties that transmitted knowledge to homogeneous student
bodies.
This has changed both locally and nationwide. For the first time in its history the
undergraduate student body at the University of California at Berkeley includes racial
minorities in numbers that begin to reflect their presence in the larger California society.
Although students from these groups are no longer excluded from a Berkeley education,
they find that in some ways they are excluded from or not taken account of adequately
by the academic disciplines that take responsibility for the analysis and interpretation of
American experience. This is not surprising. Mainly white faculties talking to mainly
white student bodies over many generations have worked out their own traditions of
what is important, what is to be selected, and what is to be ignored in the codification
5
and teaching of knowledge about our society. Students of color, because they have had
fewer opportunities to shape these assumptions, are less likely to share them, and ask
where they are and their histories fit into academic depictions of American experience.
This unprecedented conjuncture between relatively homogeneous faculties and
heterogeneous student bodies is where old ideas and expectations come sharply into
focus, and where new ones are beginning to take shape.
Scholarship is also changing. One prevailing view of a liberal education assumes that its
purpose is to assimilate students of diverse origins to a single common culture. Such a
curriculum reflects the idea of a culturally homogeneous nation but provides a limited
framework for understanding the formulation of this society. The cutting edge of recent
scholarship in history, literature, education, and several other humanistic and social
science disciplines has gone beyond monocultural models that emphasize assimilation
to demonstrate the importance of Old and New World racial and ethnic minority groups
and their histories of assimilation, independence, and exclusion in the creation of an
American culture.
Some contemporary critics of higher education fear that we as a society have gone too
far in the direction of emphasizing differences to the point that the core of values,
traditions, and assumptions that bind us are in danger of giving way. Others argue
similarly that by giving attention to differences, we risk creating further alienation
between racial and ethnic groups. We think that such fears are premature and function
to remove the curriculum from a living relationship with the students whom we educate.
If we would continue to hold up the ideal of an inclusive culture, then we must also
recognize that the full diversity of ethnic groups that contribute to it needs to be
represented in our curricular and research priorities.
In this report, we recommend a change in the undergraduate curriculum that will direct it
more toward the diversity of students that it now educates. We recommend that a wide
variety of disciplines establish courses that focus on major themes in United States
history, society, and culture and that address the major conceptual issues relevant to
understanding ethnicity, culture, race, and pluralism in the American context. Such
courses should provide the intellectual tools to understand better one’s own particular
cultural identity and those of others in their own terms. They should take substantial
account of those racial minority groups such as African Americans, American Indians,
Asian Americans, and Chicanos/Latinos that have not only been excluded from the
mainstream of American society, but continue to be underrepresented in our
mainstream curriculum.
American Cultures courses should elucidate such major concepts as race, ethnicity,
class, and gender and their influences upon the ways that Americans think about
themselves and approach issues and problems that confront their society. How, for
example, have our constituent groups shaped American literature, music, language,
folklore, and art? How have power relations between groups been manifested in such
6
matters as racism, economics, politics, environmental design, religion, education, law,
business, and the arts in the United States? What holds this nation of Old and New
world peoples together? Students will be best served by a broad spectrum of choices
offered by faculty members in a wide range of disciplines in the humanities, social
sciences, ethnic studies, women’s studies, and professional colleges.
The courses that the committee envisages are integrative and comparative. We intend
that each racial or ethnic group be studied in the larger context of American history,
society, and culture. Such courses should substantially consider at least three of the five
main racial/cultural groups in American society: African American, Indian American,
Asian American, Chicano/Latino, and European American. To be adequately
comparative, no one of these grouped may be the focus of the greater part of the
course. Other racial/cultural groups may be added where appropriate: for example, a
course on California might include coverage of Americans of Near Eastern or South
Asian descent.
The American Cultures breadth requirement will strengthen liberal education at
Berkeley. It will expose all undergraduates to cultural experiences other than their own
and provide each student with the intellectual tools for better understanding and
interpreting cultural similarities and differences. It will create an opportunity for many
disciplines to address the intellectual issues related to culture, ethnicity, and race, and
to take grater account of ethnic and racial minorities in the American past and present.
The ability to understand cultural differences is basic to living in the modern
transnational world, but begins at our doorstep where cultural diversity is an everyday
feature of student, community, and professional life.
7
Proposed Change in Division Regulations
The Committee on Education and Ethnicity unanimously recommends that the
Berkeley Division adopt a one-course American Cultures breadth requirement for
all undergraduates.
Satisfaction of the American Cultures requirement will be a prerequisite for every
bachelor’s degree awarded to students who begin their studies at Berkeley in
lower division standing in Fall 1991 or thereafter, or in upper division standing in
Fall 1993 or thereafter;
The American Cultures requirement will be satisfied by passing, with a grade not
lower than a C— or P, a course expressly approved for that purpose by a nine
member overseeing committee to be appointed by the Academic Senate;
The courses that qualify for the purposes of this requirement will be consistent
with the spirit and intent of the Committee’s recommendation as present in this
report.
8
BACKGROUND TO THE RECOMMENDATION
This recommendation for an American Cultures breadth requirement responds to four
changes that are affecting American higher education. The first is rapid change in the
ethnic and racial composition of the student body. The second is a precipitous rise in
issues related to campus racism. The third is a major debate within colleges and
universities and in the wider society over the content and purpose of a liberal education
in the American context. The fourth is the realization that racial minorities are not taken
account of adequately in many departments and courses that represent American
experience. We address these issues and others that bear upon the background and
substance of our recommendation. Topics in this section include the following:
I. Diversity and the student body
II. Campus racism
III. The debate in higher education
IV. Student critique of the curriculum
V. The present curriculum at Berkeley
VI. Curricular changes at other institutions
VII. The old proposal: Criticisms and response
VIII. Possible American Cultures courses
IX. Implementation
X. Selected bibliography
XI. Appendices
A. Cultural Pluralism Requirements at other Universities
B. Existing Graduation Requirements in the University, Schools and Colleges
C. Summaries of Possible American Cultures Courses
D. Consultation with Students, Faculty and Administrators
9
I. Diversity and the Student Body
American colleges and universities, including the University of California at
Berkeley, continue to make effective efforts to diversify their student bodies. A
release from the Berkeley Campus Office of Public Information announced last
year that “For the first time at Berkeley, and probably at any academically topranked U.S. university, there is not a majority ethnic group in the entire
undergraduate student body.” (11/2/88). According to this same release, Berkeley
undergraduates this year are 48.5 percent whites, 26.5 percent Asians, 11.1
percent Hispanics, 7.0 percent blacks, and 1.1 percent American Indians.
Berkeley campus ethnic diversity reflects larger scale population dynamics in the
State of California. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig
announced at the beginning of the 1988 school year that for the first time there
will be more minority than Anglo students enrolled in California’s public schools.
Vice Chancellor Roderic Park noted in his address to the Berkeley Division of the
Academic Senate on November 28, 1988, that “California is rapidly becoming a
unique State in terms of ethnic composition, in the sense that all our ethnic
groups will become minorities over the next twenty years.” He further added that
we “need look only at the public schools in Los Angeles County this year where
142 languages are now being spoken by students.” According to recent research
done by James Allen and Eugene Turner on “The Most Ethnically Diverse Places
in the Untied States,” the greater San Francisco Bay Area (stretching from
Monterey north to Solano County and Sacramento) is the most ethnically diverse
metropolitan region in the United States.
10
II. Campus Racism
The effects of an increasingly diverse student body on higher education in
California and elsewhere in the United States are numerous, complex, and still in
the process of emerging. One apparent effect is a rise in attention to issues of
campus racism. The following selection of titles from a range of recent
publications attests to widespread awareness of and concern with racism on
United States college and university campuses.
“Black Students Seen Facing ‘New Racism’ on Many Campuses.”The Chronicle of
Higher Education, January 27, 1988.
“Campus Racial Tensions—and Violence—Appear on Rise.” The New York Times,
Sunday, February 21, 1988.
“Campus Blacks Feel Racism’s Nuances.” The New York Times, Sunday, April 17,
1988.
“Bigotry Surfaces at U.S. Colleges.” Los Angeles Times, Sunday, May 8, 1988.
“Racism Still Smolders on Campus.” USA Today, Tuesday, May 10, 1988.
“What ‘Epidemic of Campus Bigotry?” The New York Times, Friday, May 27, 1988.
“Racial Tension Erupts in Melee at UCLA.” Los Angeles Times, Friday, May 27,
1988.
“The ivory Tower Doesn’t Rise Above Bigotry.” San Jose Mercury News,
Saturday, June 4, 1988.
“Report Reveals Stanford is a ‘Racially Troubled’ University.” East/West News,
June 9,1998.
“When Racism Goes to College.” The New York Times, Friday, June 10, 1988.
“Whites Allege Racism.‚” The Sacramento Bee, Wednesday, August 17, 1988.
“Prejudice on Campuses Is Feared to Be Rising.” The New York Times, Monday,
October 31, 1988.
“Bigotry on the Campus.” The Sacramento Bee, Tuesday, November 8, 1998.
“Whether ‘Blacks’ or ‘African Americans,’ We’re Still on the Outside Looking In.”
11
Los Angeles Times, Sunday, January 8, 1989.
“Bigots in the Ivory Tower.” Time, January 23, 1989.
“The Recoloring of Campus Life: Student Racism, Academic Pluralism, and the
End of a Dream.” Harper’s Magazine, February, 1989.
“At Dartmouth: The Clash of ‘89.” The New York Times Magazine, February 26,
1989.
“Reagan’s Children: Racial Hatred on Campus.” The Nation, February 27, 1989.
Shelby Steele, Associate Professor of English at San Jose State University, and
author of the above mentioned article on “The Recoloring of Campus Life” offers
a thoughtful interpretation of today’s racism as experienced by college students:
On a campus where members of all races are gathered, mixed together in the
classroom as well as socially, differences are more exposed than ever. And this
is where the trouble starts. For members of each race—young adults coming into
their own, often away from home for the first time—bring to this site of freedom,
exploration, and now, today, equality very deep fears and anxieties, inchoate
feelings of racial shame, anger, and guilt. These feelings could lie dormant in the
home, in familiar neighborhoods, in simpler days of childhood. But the college
campus, with its structures of interaction and adult level competition—the big
exam, the dorm, the "mixer"—is another matter. I think campus racism is born of
the rub between racial difference and a setting, the campus itself, devoted to
interaction and equality. On our campuses, such concentrated micro-societies, all
that remains unresolved between blacks and whites, all the old wounds and
shames that have never been addressed, present themselves for attention—and
present our youth with pressures they cannot always handle (Steele 1989:4849).Gerald Marwell, Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin at
Madison, author of the Friday, May 27, 1988, New York Times article on “What
‘Epidemic’ of Campus Bigotry?” sees current awareness of campus racism as a
hopeful sign in the long historical picture: “In sum, more minority students, self
assured and organized, demanding that responsive administrations end racist
conduct that still occurs frequently on their campuses, represents progress, not
regression.”
12
III. The Debate in Higher Education
Of the many voices that have contributed to the debate over the importance of culture
and ethnicity in the curriculum, that of Allan Bloom, Professor of Political Philosophy at
the University of Chicago, and author of the best seller The Closing of the American
Mind (1987), has attracted particular attention. According to Bloom, the major works of
Western civilized thought, natural human rights, the traditional emphasis on unity and
shared principles in American life, and even the social contract itself are under siege.
Against these are the proponents of moral relativism who are primarily concerned with
exposing and redressing the many forms of social inequality and whose emphasis on
other cultures and ethnic diversity threatens to weaken our social contract. “There is
one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of,” writes Bloom, “almost every student
entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative” (1987:25).
This relativism and openness, combined with our diversity, has brought us to the point
where we need to be reminded of “what we have in common all the time—what is
America, what is a human being—in order that we not break down into a set of atoms
that cannot adhere to a greater whole” (Bloom 1988:74). That which binds us in the
present has deep roots in Western experience and thought: “My notion of education is
precisely that in the U.S. we have this lengthy, old tradition. You read the Federalist
papers and you are already with Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke” (ibid.). This “old view
was that, by recognizing and accepting man’s natural rights, men found a fundamental
basis of unity and sameness. Class, race, religion, national origin or culture all
disappear or become dim when bathed in the light of natural rights, which give men
common interests and make them truly brothers” (1987:27). Earlier generations of
American immigrants put the claims of Old World experience behind them. “They
became Americans not by growing up in old roots or maintaining ethnic diversity or
accepting American myths but by learning certain common principles” (1988:74). The
ethnic differences Bloom sees in the contemporary United States “are but decaying
reminiscences of old differences.” Bloom is suspicious of the motives of those who
would require a course on non-Western cultures, because despite their commitment to
their areas of study, advocates of such requirements have a “demagogic intention.”
Those who urge the study of other cultures do so to criticize America, and have “either
no interest in” or are “actively hostile to the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution” (1987:33).
William Bennett, former U.S. Secretary of Education, entered the debate in April 1988
with his criticisms of the Stanford University decision to replace its Western Culture
program with a “Cultures, Ideas, and Values” requirement. Bennett interpreted this
decision as an instance of “the West and its unique tradition of open discourse and
philosophical inquiry” coming under attack.. “Those who attack Western values and
accomplishments do not see an America that—despite its imperfections, its
weaknesses, its sins—has served and continues to serve as a beacon to the world.
Instead, theirs an America hopelessly tainted—tainted by racism, imperialism, sexism,
13
capitalism, ethnocentrism, elitism, and a host of other ‘isms.’” Bennett did not challenge
the importance of other cultures and ethnicity in education in the curriculum, but rather
opposed what he perceived to be the dilution and devaluation of Western culture. E.D.
Hirsch, Professor of English at the University of Virginia, and author of the bestseller,
Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know, stresses the importance of
collective as opposed to local or ethnic values but in a more moderate way than Bloom:
“Our debate has been over whether to stress the many or the one. If we had to make a
choice between the one and the many, most Americans would chose the principle of
unity, since we cannot function as a nation without it” (1987:96). Lynne V. Cheney,
Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, argued recently in Humanities in
America that teaching about Western civilization and the American society that has
grown out of it is essential, but also acknowledges that “Any course in the American
experience should make clear how men and women of diverse origins have shaped and
enriched this nation’s Western inheritance” (1988:13-14).
In his Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America, Lawrence
Levine, Professor of History at the University of California, Berkeley, locates this debate
in longer term historical perspective. The theme that high culture and social unity are
endangered by popular, democratic, and marginal influences appeared at the end of the
nineteenth century when one finds the same sense of America’s cultural deterioration.
Then, as now, this debate "is between those on one side who ‘know’ what culture is ...
perceive culture to be something finite and fragile, which needs to be conserved and
protected from the incessant Philistinism that threatens it, and those on the other side
who, possessing no map and little liking for fixed and unmovable fences and
boundaries, believe that worthy, enduring culture is not the possession of any single
group or genre or period, who conceive of culture as neither finite nor fixed but dynamic
and expansive" (1988:255). According to Stanley Fish, Professor of English at Duke
University, “Projects like those of Bennett, Hirsch, and Bloom all look back to the
recovery of the earlier vision of American culture, as opposed to the conception of a
kind of ethnic carnival or festival of cultures or ways of life or customs” (The New York
Times , Sunday, September 25, 1988). Other critics of these above mentioned
viewpoints tend to argue that courses on the literary canons of Western civilization need
to be expanded to include Third World and minority writers, both as an act of intellectual
affirmative action and as a reparation for past exclusion and ignorance. Some aim not to
provide an alternative list of essential works, or to establish a new canon, but rather to
give voice to the experiences of marginalization and exclusion which such works
explore. According to this view, the works of excluded classes, whether racially,
sexually, or politically defined, provide the intellectual means to move outside the
educational and hegemonic assumptions that the canon represents. Others have
sought to reform the canon by including works by minority authors. For example, the
collection of essays edited by Rick Simonson and Scott Walker, Multi-Cultural Literacy:
Opening the American Mind, is intended to supplement Bloom’s and Hirsch’s Westerncentered agenda, for “At a time when one in four Americans are people of color, none of
us can afford to remain ignorant of the heritage and culture of any part of our
14
population” (1988:xi). The editors do not dismiss Hirsch’s catalogue of the necessary
components of cultural literacy, nut consider it to be “alarmingly deficient in its male and
European bias” (ibid.,191). In his recent essay on “The Primal Scene in Education”
Hirsch also acknowledges the importance of minority perspectives in his catalogue of
essential elements of American cultural literacy. Henry Louis Gates, Professor of
Literature at Cornell University, wrote recently of the need for new canon formation for
American minority traditions. In preparing his own forthcoming “The Norton Anthology of
Afro-American Literature” he defined a “position between those on the cultural right who
claim that black literature can have no canon, no masterpieces, and those on the
cultural left who wonder why anyone wants to establish the existence of a canon, any
canon, in the first place” (1989:44-45). Gates’ comments upon the complexities of
interpreting black American writing raise the sorts of issues that American Cultures
courses might well address:
Every black American text must confess to a complex ancestry, one high and low (that
is, literary and vernacular) but also one white and black. There can be no doubt that
white texts inform and influence black texts (and vice versa) so that a thoroughly
integrated canon of American literature is not only politically sound, it is intellectually
sound as well. But the attempt of black scholars to define a black American canon, and
to derive indigenous theories of interpretation from within this canon, are not meant to
refute the soundness of these gestures of integration. Rather, it is a question of
perspective ... Just as we can and must cite a black text within the larger American
tradition, we can and must cite it within its own tradition, a tradition not defined by ... a
mystically shared essence called blackness, but by the repetition and revision of shared
themes (ibid.:45).Recent publications by Ronald Takaki, of the program in Ethnic
Studies at the University of California at Berkeley (“An Educated and Culturally Literate
Person Must Study America’s Multicultural Reality”), and Sucheng Chan, Professor of
History at the University of California at Santa Barbara (“On the Ethnic Studies
Requirement”), argue for the exciting, creative, and revitalizing potential of ethnic and
multicultural studies in the university curriculum. Takaki notes that “The need to open
the American mind to greater cultural diversity will not go away ... it offers colleges and
universities a timely and exciting opportunity to revitalize the social sciences and
humanities, giving both a new sense of purpose and a more inclusive definition of
knowledge” (1989:B2). Chan adds that “our presence in the university should be treated
as an exciting addition, not an inconvenient political necessity ... when we give students
tools needed to enable them to make the world better, future generations benefit”
(1989:14).
15
IV. Student Critique of the Curriculum
Increased awareness of campus racism and the academic debate over whether we are
or should be a nation of one or many take place in a context of increased racial minority
presence in the student body, administration, and faculties of American colleges and
universities. This presence is the strongest at the undergraduate level and least strong
at the faculty level. New students ask new questions that arise from their distinctive
histories. They ask for new or additional expertise on the part of their teachers and want
to learn of their experience and traditions from those disciplines that are concerned with
American experience. In many cases they feel that they are misunderstood, not
represented or slighted.
The following statements by Berkeley students that we extracted from newspaper article
or heard in person make the point. We do not think that such student comments should
be dismissed or that they reflect short-term interests. Rather, this critique of the
curriculum is rooted in important changes in the student body that in turn reflect major
and long-term changes in California’s population.
An ethnic studies requirement is an attempt to address the systematic manner in which
the histories of people of color in the United States have been ignored or
misrepresented in the classroom.
Increasingly, the challenge to all Californians will be to develop a common awareness
that recognizes and effectively responds to the cultures, histories, and concerns of our
different racial minority groups.
U.C. Berkeley must familiarize its undergraduates with the histories and concerns of all
racial populations that comprise our state.
The question is whether you believe people of color have contributed to this society.
There is a need for change in the curriculum. Courses are incomplete. The contributions
of people of color are disrespected.
The curriculum denies the histories of people of color.
An ethnic studies requirement which would focus on the contributions and experiences
of people of color in this country, is necessary to improve a traditionally Eurocentric
curriculum.
There’s a lot left out of history. I don’t see my people when I read my history books. We
must introduce the contributions of people of color, and I don’t think there will be peace
on this campus until this happens.
16
Berkeley students should hear what we [minorities] have to say about ourselves.
Such courses could help clear up misconceptions about ethnic groups and their
contributions in America.
Such comments underline themes announced in the report from the Joint Committee or
review of the Master Plan for Higher Education (California Faces ... California’s Future:
Education for Citizenship in a Multicultural Democracy, 1988): ... we affirm that
education must be informed by a deep sense of our historical location. We need each
student to fully develop his or her capacities for living proudly in a multicultural
community, itself part of an international community.
Ours is, of course, a history and culture which has always been multicultural and
international. Education for multicultural success is imperative for each and every
student regardless of race or ethnic origin. Among the intellectual and social boundaries
we now most need to move across are those segregating the cultures which make
California so vibrant and rich. We regard it to be in the state’s direct and immediate
interest that our students develop an appreciation of, and comfort with, cultures other
than their own (95).
... every student should have the opportunity to know the history of both ethnic minority
and majority peoples, and learn something of the meaning of those histories in our
current and future affairs. We therefore strongly support efforts within each segment to
make ethnic studies and undergraduate graduation requirement, and to integrate
multicultural issues into the departmental offerings across the board (95-96).
17
V. The Present Curriculum at Berkeley
Our committee, as part of its initial data gathering, collected course outlines from many
Berkeley departments, in order to better understand the range and depth of treatment of
ethnic and racial topics, particularly in the Humanities and Social Sciences. We created
three loose categories: (1) those department in which a variety of efforts are made to
study a diversity of racial and ethnic groups in the United States, (2) those departments
which offer a few courses but make little concerted effort to cover racial and ethnic
diversity, (3) those departments in which almost no effort to treat ethnic and racial
diversity is made. Without naming department here (a complete outline of our results
appears in Appendix C of our original report), we conclude that there is room for
improvement in every department and that a number of major departments are weak or
negligent in the study and teaching of ethnic and racial diversity. We concluded from our
inquiries that there is a great need for a more coherent, focused, and integrated multidisciplinary approach toward the campus-wide study of ethnic and racial diversity in the
United States.
18
VI. Curricular Changes at Other Institutions
The activities of our committee are part of a nationwide effort by American colleges and
universities to respond to the academic and intellectual issues raised by challenging
student bodies. On the faculty side this has resulted, as we have seen, in a vigorous
debate over how to represent American identity and experience. On the student side
this has given rise to concrete recommendations for change, of which some form of
ethnic studies graduation requirement is the most prominent. Many major institutions
(See Appendix A) already have implemented or are in the process of considering
change. The following three examples from Stanford University, the University of
Michigan, and the University of Minnesota give an idea of the types of responses that
we encountered in our survey of other academic institutions.
On Thursday, March 31, 1988, the Faculty Senate at Stanford University approved the
new “Cultures, Ideas and Values” (CIV) requirement to replace the Western culture
requirement, which had been in effect since 1980. The new CIV requirement can be
fulfilled by as many as ten certified tracks, or year long sequences of courses. The
objectives and specifications of the CIV requirement include the following, as selected
from the Faculty Senate’s Final Legislation:
To provide students with the common intellectual experience of broadening their
understanding of ideas and values drawn from different strands of our own culture, and
to increase their understanding of cultural diversity and the process of cultural
interaction.
To develop students’ abilities to examine critically ideas and values, for the sake of selfunderstanding and understanding of others.
To further understanding of self, others, and society and therefore to confront issues
relating to class, ethnicity, race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation, and to include
the study of works by women, minorities, and persons of color.
To further understanding of the diverse ideas and values that have shaped American
society and culture by studying works from at least one of the European cluster of
cultures and from at least one of the non-European cultures that have become
components of our diverse American society. The ideas and values expressed in each
work shall be treated in their own terms and, to the extent possible, within their own
cultural and historical context.
To have substantial historical dimension. Tracks should analyze the temporal
relationship of works to each other and examine some of the political, social, economic,
and material contexts of the works.
To give substantial attention to the issues of race, gender and class during each
19
academic quarter, with at least one of these issues to be addressed explicitly in at least
one major reading in each quarter.
The situation at Stanford differs from that at the University of California at Berkeley
because the tracks for the year-long Western culture requirement already had existed
there since 1980. They reframed the existing requirement to give substantial attention to
the non-Western sources of Western and American culture, and to include attention to
issues of gender and class. Following the approval of the CIV proposal, the Students of
Color Coalition at Stanford urged in Fall 1988 that an ethnic studies graduation
requirement also be added to the curriculum (Stanford News 10/26/88; 11/1/88) and a
faculty sub committee has since been appointed to consider proposals to incorporate
ethnicity and gender among the University’s distribution requirements. Undergraduate
Studies Dean Thomas Wasow noted that there is “likely to be a major rethinking of the
distribution requirements with an eye toward incorporating more materials from
traditionally excluded groups.” (Stanford News 1/10/89).
On October 6, 1988, a group of faculty member at the University of Michigan called
upon their colleagues to adopt a college-wide course on racism. The LSA Curriculum
Committee approved the proposal and it is now under consideration by the Executive
Committee of the College. Authors of the proposal note that “Opinion research on
minority undergraduates do not show the University of Michigan to be an institution
where minority students feel welcome-on the contrary.” They propose a synthetic
approach to the issues surrounding racism: “Central to thinking behind the present
proposal is the idea that critical analysis-historical, sociological, cultural, and
anthropological-is a powerful weapon against racism.” The proposed four-credit course
would draw upon faculty from many disciplines who would team-teach 400-student
lecture sessions. It also would include 20 student discussion sections. This course
would be repeated in four to five sections each term, each taught by different faculty.
The University of Minnesota now requires for graduation at least two courses to fulfill a
“World Studies Requirement” and at least two courses to fulfill a “U.S. Cultural Pluralism
Requirement.” The World Studies Requirement asks students “to examine cultures
substantially different from their own. The requirement is completion of at least two
courses ... dealing with the cultures of Asia, Africa, or Latin America or with traditional
American Indian cultures.” The U.S. Cultural Pluralism Requirement may be fulfilled by
at least two courses dealing with Afro-American, American Indian, Asian American, and
Chicano cultures, and the concepts of race and ethnicity, ethnocentrism and racism,
and other significant social factors in these cultures.”
The concerns (both nation-wide and on this campus) that led to the appointment of our
committee had to do with how to represent American experience to American students.
We focused on how better to understand the American experience by better
understanding the racial and cultural components that created it. The Michigan
proposal, to focus exclusively on racism, highlights one important dimension of
American experience but overlooks many other themes that might be elucidated.
20
Although we think that courses on foreign cultures could offer understanding of specific
American ethnic groups, provide knowledge about other cultures, and impart an
analytical framework for other-cultural understanding, such courses would be an indirect
route to interpreting the American context. Ethnic Studies and Afro-American Studies
courses at Berkeley are directly concerned with American racial minorities. An ethnic
studies graduation requirement would guarantee focused academic exposure to one
racial minority group in the United States. It would also compensate for any lack of
coverage of such groups in other disciplines. However, such a graduation requirement
would leave the current division of intellectual labor (where United States racial
minorities are primarily the domain of Ethnic Studies and Afro-American Studies)
unchanged. We urge that race and ethnicity be a greater part of the domain of the broad
range of disciplines (such as Social Welfare, Political Science, Economics, Business,
Education, Journalism, Music, History, Sociology, Linguistics, Anthropology, Law,
English, Comparative Literature, Art History, and others) that interpret the American
past and/or present. As difficult as it is to take this complexity into account, it can be
illuminated by many disciplines and is basic to understanding our historical and
contemporary identity. For this reason we advocate the inclusive and comparative
approach.
21
VII. The Old Proposal: Criticism and Response
Our original recommendation for an American Cultures graduation requirement (April
27, 1988) read as follows:
Courses that satisfy the American Cultures requirement should ... emphasize the
cultural and political experiences and contributions of racial minority groups such as
Native Americans, Chicano/Latino Americans, Afro-Americans, and Asian Americans in
their relations with Euro-American and other ethnic groups which resulted in the shaping
of the United States.
The courses that the committee envisages are integrative and comparative. They
should, for example, include in-depth coverage of at least two of the above mentioned
American minorities so that the greater part of the semester should be committed to
coverage of such groups.
Berkeley faculty criticisms of the academic merits of this recommendation (as
expressed at three workshops, at the May 10, 1988, Academic Senate meeting, in
written responses to our December 9, 1988, questionnaire, and at numerous committee
meetings) focused on four principal points.
1. The strongest criticism was that the old proposal was too formulaic, too one
sided, too political, a form of reverse racism, tokenism, white-bashing, and it
excluded or minimized European Americans. Why single out those four racial
minority groups and not include others such as Irish Americans, Jewish
Americans, Arab Americans, and Armenian Americans who also suffered from
prejudice and discrimination?
We intended that the American Cultures courses be comparative and integrative. We do
not want comparison to be interpreted narrowly (for example, a course that would focus
exclusively on European American ethnic groups) and do not advocate courses that
would focus on any group as if it could be viewed in isolation from the context of the
United States society and culture. By comparative we now mean explicitly that
comparisons should be made between the main racial and cultural categories of
American society, past or present. By main racial and cultural category we mean African
American, American Indian, Asian American, Chicano/Latino, and European American.
We do not require that all five categories be included in any one course, but in order to
assure that the courses be truly comparative we stipulate as a minimal condition that at
least three categories be included, and that no one of these shall be the focus of the
greater part of the course. Other categories may be added where appropriate. The
underlying criteria for these courses are that they 1) focus on important themes and
issues in the Untied States history, society, and culture, 2) that they address the
theoretical and analytical issues relevant to understanding race, culture, and ethnicity, in
our society, 3) that they provide a framework for better understanding one’s particular
cultural/historical identity and that of others, and 4) that they take significant account of
22
racial minority groups.
Each of the above mentioned racial/cultural categories includes many specific ethnic or
national groups that need not be enumerated in this report. African American, for
example, is a complex category that also includes Cape Verdean American, and West
Indian American. Asian American includes Chinese, Japanese, and Korean American.
European American includes Irish, Italian, Jewish, and Anglo-American, etc. How one
approaches comparison and integration, and the specific ethnic groups that may be
deemed relevant would depend upon the problem and topical orientation of the course
and would be for the instructor to determine. The Academic Senate appointed
overseeing committee will be charged with determining whether or not a particular
course qualifies for the American Cultures breadth requirement.
2. Some faculty members believed that the requirement would worsen racial
tensions rather than lessen them, and divide students along ethnic and racial
lines-either because we have gone to far in emphasizing differences, or because
majority students would resent having minority issues forced upon them.
This belief underlies some of the arguments for a return to a more traditional,
consensual, and Western-oriented core curriculum. In his article on “The Recoloring of
Campus Life” Shelby Steele argued for a qualified version of this point of view: “I think
universities should emphasize commonalty as a higher value than ‘diversity’ and
‘pluralism’—buzzwords for the politics of difference. Difference that does not rest on a
clearly delineated foundation of commonalty not only is inaccessible to those who are
not part of the ethnic or racial group but is agnostic to them ... Integration has become
an abstract term today, having to do with little more than numbers and racial balances.
But it stood once for a high and admirable set of values. It made difference second to
commonalty, and it asked members of all races to face whatever fears they inspired in
each other” (Steele 1989:55).
A case may be made for the reverse of this position: that commonalty emerges from
openly acknowledging difference. A number of American corporations are exploring this
point of view in their efforts to adjust to a changing work force. For example, King-ming
Young, manager of the cultural diversity project at Hewlett Packard Co., noted recently
in The Wall Street Journal that “The way to color blindness is through color
consciousness” (Solomon 1989:B1).
The committee raised the question of whether such a requirement would create racial
tension with representatives of three institutions where related requirements have been
approved. Dr. Donna Shalala, Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Madison,
responded that their requirement (which will emphasize American ethnic groups and
foreign cultures) will go into effect this coming fall. The decision to implement it had not
been the source, to her knowledge, of any noticeable resentment or increase in ethnic
and racial conflict. A faculty committee is now identifying and approving courses that will
23
satisfy the requirement.
Dr. Fred Lukermann, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Minnesota,
indicated that their two-semester requirement has worked out well, and that it stimulated
graduate students and young instructors to teach and do research in the general areas
of ethnicity, pluralism, and comparative perspectives. According to Lukermann, the
Minnesota requirement has evolved from one that is now more broadly comparative and
that deals with class, gender, income, religion, and age, as well as race, culture, and
ethnicity. At the initial phase of the requirement there was resistance from academic
disciplines that felt only a few programs (i.e. ethnic studies) would benefit from and
teach such courses. People were turned off by the narrow range of possible ways to
fulfill the requirement. That changed when the emphasis on a comparative and
pluralistic approach made it possible for many other disciplines to contribute. According
to Lukermann, it was necessary for the University to provide funds for experimentation
with new courses in order to break out of the situation where two or three departments
cornered the market. Now that the basic orientation of the requirement is toward
pluralism and a comparative perspective, and that a number of traditional departments
have been given the resources and encouragement to participate in it, Lukermann feels
that it is working well.
The third person we contacted was Professor Victor Rocha, Provost of Oakes College
at the University of California at Santa Cruz, where an ethnic studies course or a course
on a non-European culture have been required since 1985. According to Rocha, no one
has studied the question of how this requirement has affected racial relations on
campus. Although some students may have been uncomfortable with the requirement,
they mainly have accepted it, and he has no evidence that it is a source of racial
tension. In his opinion, the requirement has worked to alleviate such tensions.
The requirement that we are proposing avoids the extreme positions raised in the above
mentioned canon controversy. It is similar to that in effect at Minnesota in that it is
inherently comparative and pluralistic, and will draw upon many departments. By its
very nature it will encourage attention to both issues of commonalty and difference. This
is the point. We sought to create a series of courses that will provide a framework for
studying, teaching about, and understanding the three basic dimensions in American
identity—the plures, the unum, and the experience of exclusion. In order to retain the
vitality that made such requirements a national consideration in the first place, we
focused upon American experience and in such a way that racial minority experience
would be significantly included. We felt that to broaden the scope of the requirement to
include pluralism per se, comparativism per se, or to open it to any foreign cultures, or
to any non-Western cultures, would dilute its purpose. We see little evidence that an
American Cultures breadth requirement will exacerbate racial to ethnic tensions.
In this regard, we would like to note that a very broad spectrum of Berkeley student
organizations supported the original proposal in spring 1988. In the Monday, May 9,
24
edition of The Daily Californian, the African Students Association, American Indian
Students Association, the U.C. Berkeley Interfraternity Council and Pan Hellenic
Association, the Co-ordinators of MEChA, the ASUC President, and the ASUC
President-elect endorsed the proposal jointly with the following statement:
What is important to note about this proposed requirement is the opportunity it will offer
us as students. It will bring us together, from different cultures and ethnicities, in the
systematic and informed study of American society in all of its diversity-how all of us as
Americans of color and as Euro-Americans have contributed to the making of the United
States (The Daily Californian May 9, 1988:4).3. Another criticism was that ethnicity
is only one topic among many, such as Western civilization, world civilization,
science, technology, geography, gender, health, religion, foreign cultures, and
ethics that are arguably important for a basic liberal education. Let’s look at the
curriculum first; why is it ethnicity so important that courses on this topic should
be required?
To some extent this criticism overlooks the fact that graduation requirements and
breadth requirements already exist for all schools and colleges in the University.
Nevertheless, our earlier recommendation stimulated interest in the broader discussion
of curriculum change. We were not charged to pursue this larger project but rather to
look at ethnicity and diversity to encourage innovations. We support further discussion
of the curriculum but also would add that ethnicity and diversity are at national center
stage wherever such discussions are taking place. In our estimation, the requirement
that we propose merits inclusion in any revised curriculum that the faculty may propose
in the near future. The change that we are recommending-a collaborative effort
involving many disciplines to create a variety of new perspectives around the themes of
culture, ethnicity, and race, the diversity and unity of American life-will bring the
intellectual life of the university closer to the range of students whom it is trying to reach
and educate. To recommend and not require the American Cultures courses will result
in no effective change. We can also conceive that as the faculty changes and as
attention to ethnicity and diversity takes root in the academic disciplines, that such a
requirement may at some point no longer be necessary. We view this requirement as a
necessary first step toward a long-term goal. We do not think it will end racism, but it will
help students to better understand it and will make courses on American experience be
more reflective of the ethnic and racial communities that shaped that experience. All
students, majority and minority alike, will benefit practically and intellectually from a
multicultural understanding of our multicultural society.
4. A fourth and widely raised problem concerned the impact that an American
Cultures graduation requirement would have on student course load, and thus
progress towards graduation. Students in the sciences and engineering are
already overburdened. Would not this requirement add another burden and cut
into their already limited opportunities to select courses outside their majors?
At present, the University, i.e., all component colleges and schools, mandates two
25
graduation requirements for all students, Subject A (a basic English reading and
composition requirement) and American History and Institutions. Both these
requirements may be fulfilled at high school, at other colleges or campuses, or by
examination. In addition, each School or College demands the satisfaction of specified
breadth requirements for graduation, often including up to six courses selected from
outside the field of the student’s major as well as Reading and Composition and a
foreign language. In most Schools and Colleges, a number of these requirements,
especially Reading and Composition, may be fulfilled at High School, by advanced
placement or exam, or at other campuses. (A breakdown of School and College breadth
requirements is appended.)
In every case, the philosophy behind the breadth requirement entails the supposition
that a University education involves not only training in a specific area of study or for a
particular profession but also the formation of citizens with a broad knowledge of
institutions, history, and sciences which constitute their culture in the fullest sense. The
philosophy behind the adoption of an American Cultures Requirement is similar, but
since it involves also several principles which have not to date been assumed in
University curricula, the conditions of its fulfillment will differ in some respects from
those of other breadth requirements. In some ways, the conditions of fulfillment will be
stricter, in others more flexible. What follows are some remarks on the conditions of its
fulfillment which may help clarify the practical significance of its introduction for the
various majors at Berkeley.
Since the American Cultures requirement involves the rethinking of what is entailed in
an education adequate to the cultural diversity of the state and the nation, the
committee does not feel confident that it could at present be satisfied by courses offered
either at high school level or at other campuses or community colleges. (N.B. It would
be the responsibility of the committee appointed to oversee the requirement to decide
whether or not courses taken at other institutions can fulfill the requirement.) As we
have stated, it is not simply an ethnic studies course, nor a civics course, but is
specifically designed to encourage, through comparative study, reflection on the nature
and history of cultural diversity. Only a certain range of courses, as defined by this
report and developed along its guidelines, will respond adequately to this educational
need as we understand it. We anticipate that U.C. Berkeley will perform a pioneering
role in the development of such courses, and strongly feel that it is appropriate that only
courses developed and taught on this campus should satisfy the requirement.
While we feel that the requirement should be satisfied only at Berkeley initially, we feel
equally that in other respects its conditions of fulfillment might be more flexible than is
the case with breadth requirements generally. Whereas currently existing breadth
requirements are designed to ensure students’ general knowledge outside their major,
the American Cultures requirement is intended only to introduce reflection on cultural
diversity into the overall programs of all undergraduates. Accordingly, we do not feel it is
necessary for student to fulfill this requirement outside the field of their majors. Rather,
26
we feel the maximum flexibility as to the manner of the requirement’s fulfillment is
desirable. Students should be permitted to fulfill the requirement either within the
standard format of their majors or as a course supplementary to other requirements.
Thus, for example, a History or English major might take a course that also fulfilled a
major requirement (e.g., English 138 to fulfill also that major’s requirement in “Cultural
Varieties of English Language and Literature”) or take a course in a Social Science that
would count as a breadth requirement as well as satisfying the American Cultures
requirement. On the other hand, an Engineering major could take the same English
course, or a course in a Social Science, either of which would count as fulfilling one of
the courses that Engineering majors must take to fulfill eighteen units of breadth
requirements.
In other words, we strongly recommend that the American Cultures requirement should
be satisfiable in combination with the already existent requirements of individual majors.
This recommendation is designed to limit to a minimum any increase in student
workload that might otherwise follow from the implementation of this requirement.
As a corollary to this recommendation, we urge that all relevant departments consider
ways in which courses that might fulfill this requirement could be added to or integrated
into their current major requirements. We also urge that the Administration provide
every possible financial and other practical assistance to departments seeking to
develop new courses or to train or hire faculty and graduate assistants with this end in
view.
Due to the expertise required to teach adequately such courses as would satisfy this
requirement, we do not feel it advisable that it should be fulfilled through any course
whose primary function is to meet the Reading and Composition Requirements. These
courses are intended to develop students’ rhetorical skills and, though there may be
many exceptions, we do not feel it advisable to expect the numerous graduate students
who have been trained to teach these courses necessarily to have the competence in
the area defined herein as “American Cultures.” Nor, given the importance which we
attach to this requirement, do we feel it advisable for its fulfillment to be relegated to
lower division courses whose primary function is the teaching of writing skills and which
are, in any case, already oversubscribed.
In summary, we believe that the implementation of this requirement need not
significantly add to the work load or reduce the breadth choice open to students beyond
the present structure of their majors. We recommend, nonetheless, that departments
assist in directing their majors’ attention to the problems of cultural diversity by
developing courses within their majors, where applicable, or by directing students’
attention to American Cultures courses that also fulfill breadth requirements.
27
VIII. Possible American Cultures Courses
A number of faculty members in response to our earlier report proposed new courses
that might satisfy an eventual American Cultures requirement. Summaries of these
preliminary course descriptions and summaries of selected courses that already exist,
may be seen in Appendix C. These proposed and existing courses would fulfill the
requirement that we propose with little or no revision. The titles of these 31 courses,
which represent 16 disciplines, are as follows:
A. Afro-American Studies
Ethnic and Racial Succession in Urban Politics
B. Anthropology
American Folklore
American Material Culture
Education in a Plural Society: Ethnicity, Race, and Schooling in the United States
Religion in America
C. Architecture
Housing Patterns for Different Subcultures
D. Conservation and Resource Studies
California Environmental History and Culture
E. Economics
The Economics of Racial Inequality
F. Education
Going to School in America
Language, Culture, Ethnicity, and American Schools
G. English
Ethnic American Autobiography
California Literature
Women of Color in the United States: Race, Class, Gender, and Writing
Publishing Subcultures in the United States: A Second World War Case Study
Narratives of Self-Formation in Minority Writing
American Literature 1820-1865
H. Ethnic Studies
Politics and People of Color
United States Third World Women Writers
Racial Inequality in American: A Comparative Historical Perspective
Women of Color in the United States
28
I. Geography
California
J. History
The Repeopling of America
California
K. Journalism
News and Culture: American Journalism and Its Public
L. Linguistics
The American Languages
M. Music
Ethnic Identity from a Musical Perspective
N. Social Welfare
Social Work Practice with Minority Families and Children
O. Sociology
Racial Change: The Last Generation
Race and Ethnic Relations in the United States
Comparative Population Histories of the United States
P. Women’s Studies
Poverty and Progress: Race, Gender, and Dependency
A number of other faculty members provided outlines of courses that they teach that
could be revised to satisfy the requirement. Others suggested possible new courses
that we have not yet seen. Their disciplines include Afro-American Studies,
Anthropology, Architecture, Economics, History, Legal Studies, Political Science, and
Sociology.
29
IX. Implementation
Preparation: The Fall 1991 semester would be the earliest date that the requirement
could go into effect. The list of possible courses given above should be expanded and
developed in the two years prior to the start up date. The committee that oversees the
implementation of the requirement will establish guidelines and procedures for
determining which of these and other proposed courses satisfy the requirement, and will
review descriptions and syllabi for these courses. Instructors will be encouraged to offer
American Cultures courses in 1990-91, the year preceding the official start-up for the
requirement. These courses will be advertised and promoted widely among students
and undergraduate advisers as an elective or as an alternate for an existing breadth
requirement.
Evaluation: A two-part evaluation plan will be developed to monitor the proposed
requirement. The first consists of a formative evaluation plan the purpose of which is to
help instructors assess the effectiveness of their courses and to refine course methods
and content. Instructors and students should be involved in the design of these
evaluation procedures.
The second part of the evaluation plan will be to look at the implementation and
governance of the requirement, and at the educational effectiveness of the courses. Are
they fulfilling the intellectual goals of the requirement? This evaluation should take place
five years after the requirement goes into effect.
Courses: Very few American Cultures courses would be needed to satisfy student
demand in 1991-92 (the first year the requirement could go into effect) since it would
apply only to freshman admitted for the 1991-92 academic year (i.e., it would not be
retroactive to students admitted in previous years). Ten courses (5 each semester)
should be sufficient. A total of about 26 courses would be needed for 1992-93, and
about 36 for 1993-94. We expect that the demand will have stabilized after 1993-94 and
approximately 36 courses will be needed each year thereafter in order for students to
fulfill the requirement. These figures are based upon an average class size of about 175
students.
Center: We propose that a center for the teaching and study of American Cultures be
established right away on the Berkeley campus to orchestrate the intellectual and
practical aspects of implementing the requirement. Faculty members with expertise in
American cultures are now dispersed across a wide range of disciplines. The Center
would provide them with the organizational structure to interact with and learn from
colleagues in other disciplines with similar and related interests. In particular, the Center
would: (1) offer support, assistance and resources for instructors who are interested in
developing or improving courses and course materials that satisfy the proposed
American Cultures requirement, (2) provide an intellectual setting in which faculty
30
members from different disciplines might identify and develop their common in interests
in issues related to culture and ethnicity in the United States, (3) provide a bridge
between the intellectual resources in the Ethnic Studies Programs and the other
departments in the university, (4) bring together, in colloquia and study groups, faculty
and graduate students who will be serving as GSIs, with the objective of building an
intellectual community of scholars who are responsible for teaching the courses that
fulfill this requirement, (5) seek extra mural funds for grants and fellowships to support
innovations and improvements in the teaching of cultural pluralism, and (6) serve as a
valuable resource for the campus community, and for other universities across the
country.
Any member of the faculty with an interest in American Cultures will be invited to affiliate
with the Center and anyone wishing to develop a course for inclusion on the list may
make use of its resources. As a Center for teaching, it will be unlike other centers on the
Berkeley campus. It will be devoted to the improvement of teaching in this area rather
than research, although research would not be precluded as a function or concern of
the Center. In fact, by bringing together members of the campus community who have
an interest in multicultural issues, the Center could facilitate cross-disciplinary research
efforts. The main emphasis of the Center should be on teaching, however, and it is
hoped that some of the research efforts of the teaching faculty will be devoted to
evaluating the effectiveness of the courses, and to studying their effect on the
perceptions, and attitudes of the students who take them.
Governance Committee for Center: We propose that the Chancellor appoint a fiveperson Executive Committee (with one of them designated as chair of the committee) to
govern the Center. This Executive Committee will be charged with: (a) preparing a plan
for the implementation and governance of the Center, (b) securing funding from the
University and other sources for the activities of the Center, (c) working with interested
faculty to establish community that will form the core of those who will teach the
American Cultures courses, (d) Coordinating the campus-wide effort that will be
necessary to assure that a sufficient number of American Cultures courses will be
scheduled each semester, and (e) hiring the staff that will be needed for the proper
functioning of the Center.
During the next academic year (1989-90) the Executive Committee of the American
Cultures Center would begin work to create the community of scholars who would
revise old courses and develop new ones that would fulfill the requirement.
Overseeing Committee for Requirement: We also recommend that the Committee on
Committees appoint a nine-person overseeing committee to oversee the requirement
and to approve courses to meet it. This overseeing committee would include a chair
from the Committee for Educational Policy and would consist of seven faculty members,
one undergraduate student, and a GSI who has assisted the teaching of an American
Cultures required course. Four faculty members shall be selected from those who teach
31
American cultures courses and/or have some expertise in the in areas covered by the
requirement.
This overseeing Committee will have responsibility for reviewing course descriptions
and reading lists to determine their suitability (as defined in this report) for fulfilling the
requirement. The overseeing committee will have authority to remove courses from the
approved list if such courses do not effectively fulfill the intent of the requirement. It is
understood that the courses in question will be approved by the Committee on Courses.
The committee will also have the responsibility for determining which courses taken at
other institutions may fulfill the requirement.
GSI Training Program: The Graduate Assembly TA Training project has expressed
interest in designing a GSI Training Program for American Cultures courses should the
requirement be approved.
32
X. Selected Bibliography
Bennett, William J. “Why the West?” Ms., Stanford University, Palo Alto, April 18, 1988.
Bloom, Allan. The Closing of the American Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc.,
1987.
______. “A Most uncommon Scold.” Time, (Interview) October 17 1988: 74-76.
Chan, Sucheng. “On the Ethnic Studies Requirement, Part 1: Pedagogical Implications.”
Amerasia Journal 15(1) 1989 (Forthcoming): 1-14.
Cheney, Lynne. Humanities in America: A report to the President, the Congress, and
the American People. Washington: National endowment for the humanities, 1988.
Gates, Henry Louis. “Whose Cannon Is It Anyway?” The New York Times Book Review,
February 26, 1989: 1, 44-45.
Graff, Gerald and William E. Cain. “Peace Plan for the Cannon Wars.” The Nation 248
(9), March 6, 1989: 310-313
Hirsch, E.D. Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. Boston: Hughton
Mifflin Company, 1987.
______. “The Primal Scene of Education.” The New York Review of Books XXXVI (3),
March 2, 1989:29-35.
Joint Committee for Review of the Master Plan for Higher Education. California Faces ...
California’s future: Education for citizenship in a Multicultural Democracy. December 30,
1988.
Levin, Lawrence. Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in
American. Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1988
Simonson, Rick, and Scott Walker, eds. The Graywolf Annual Five: Multi-Cultural
Literacy: Opening the American Mind. Saint Paul: Graywolf Press, 1988.
Smelser, Neil, Chair. Lower Division at the University of California: A Report fro the
Task Force on Lower Division Education.. June 1986.
Solomon, Jolie. “Firms Address Worker’s Cultural Variety.” The Wall Street Journal.
February 10, 1989: B1.
33
Special Committee on the Elberg and Smelser Reports. The Elberg and Smelser
Reports: Proposals for a Response from the College of Letters and Science. June 15,
1987.
Steele, Shelby. “The Recoloring of Campus Life: Student Racism, Academic Pluralism,
and the End of a dream.” Harper’s Magazine, February 1989: B1-2.
34
XI. Appendices
A. Cultural Pluralism Requirements at other Universities
B. Existing Graduation Requirements in the University, Schools and Colleges (not
included here)
C. Summaries of Possible American Cultures Courses (abridged)
D. Consultation with Students, Faculty and Administrators
Appendix A: Cultural Pluralism Requirements at other Universities
Introduction
In recent years, the traditional content of liberal education has come under
increasing criticism and scrutiny among the nation’s leading universities and in
public debates. The key question is: as the world becomes a global village and
the population of the U.S. becomes increasingly multiracial and multicultural,
what knowledge, skills and values are essential to enable educated individuals in
our democratic society to live intelligently, productively, sensitively, and
responsibly?
Some criticize the core curriculum of traditional undergraduate education for
being too narrow and Eurocentric, while others accuse universities of failing to
provide students with an adequate knowledge of Western civilization. Behind this
current debate and some recent curriculum reforms in several major universities
across the nation is a growing awareness that the content of the nation’s liberal
education needs to reflect the growing racial diversity and experiences of the U.S.
population on the one hand and to add the intellectual and aesthetic
contributions of non-European cultures on the other hand. Both are legitimate
concerns and both require timely and appropriate remedies.
Since the original charge of our committee precludes a review of the latter, this
report makes only passing reference to the issue of non-European cultures
outside the U.S. and provides an informal survey of what some of the universities
have been doing to make their curricula more inclusive and racial diversity an
integral part of their undergraduate curricula. This brief report covers first the
cultural pluralism requirement on California campuses and then recent trends in
other states.
In California
In California, all junior colleges have, for the Associate of Arts degree, a
35
requirement for ethnic studies, and about half of all state colleges and
universities (CSU) have some kind of ethnic studies graduation requirement for
the Bachelor’s degree. For example, in the Bay Area, both CSU campuses in San
Francisco and Hayward include ethnic studies courses among those that satisfy
their general education requirements.
Reflecting one aspect of the ongoing national discussion, the California State
Legislature adopted Assembly Concurrent Resolution 71 on April 28, 1983, calling
on the three segments of California’s public higher education to review their
policies and programs concerning the nature and extent of courses examining
the cultural and historical experiences of the nonwhite ethnic groups that have
been excluded from the core curriculum and to consider adopting necessary
policies and programs to ensure that all graduates from the three segments
possess an understanding and awareness of nonwhite ethnic groups. Pursuant
to ACR 71, the University Committee on Educational Policy (UCEP) urged, on
February 11, 1985, all UC campuses to “ensure that a variety of courses
representing the cultural and historical experiences of ethnic minorities continue
to be accessible to undergraduate students as both breadth and elective
courses.” The UCEP resolution was approved by the university-wide Academic
Council on January 14, 1987. [emphasis in the original]
Thus far, UC campuses have responded to ACR 71 and the university-wide
Academic Senate resolution differently. UC Santa Cruz currently is the only UC
campus that has a requirement. Adopted in February 1985, students may take
either an ethnic studies course on a non-European culture toward satisfying
breadth requirements for graduation. UC Riverside, UC Irvine, UC Davis, and UC
San Diego are considering the establishment of a requirement. UCLA is currently
developing a cluster of courses designed to be used for a possible requirement.
In recent report (May 4, 1987) to the Chancellor’s Office at UC Davis, an external
committee appointed by the Vice Chancellor and chaired by Prof. Nathan Huggins
of Harvard University noted: “The University of California Academic Senate and
its committees have recommended that each campus develop some such
requirement [an Ethnic Studies general education requirement] as basic to the
general education of students living in the culturally pluralistic environment of
the State of California We recommend that the Davis campus, conforming with
Academic Senate recommendation, adopt a general education requirement in
ethnic studies.”
Similarly, a proposal to require a course “that studies a nonwhite ethnic minority
group or groups in the U.S. or the area of origin of one or more such groups” was
submitted in June last year to CEP of UC San Diego for consideration by the
Third College Curriculum and Academic Affairs Committee. In submitting the
proposal, the committee suggested: “Including an ethnic studies requirement in
36
the core curriculum strikes us as the only effective way to ensure that all UCSD
graduates will have been asked to ponder issues of ethnicity at some point in
their education. Equally important, including ethnic studies in the core curriculum
can be one way of signaling the commitment of UCSD to maintain a multicultural
learning environment in which all the diverse elements of the state’s population
are welcome.”
Likewise, CEP at UC Riverside recommended on May 28, 1987, a campus-wide
requirement in comparative ethnicity as part of the breadth requirements in either
the humanities or social sciences. In making the recommendation, the committee
wrote: “We see great value in exposing all of our students to the discussion of
America’s ethnic communities within an academic arena. Many students will
arrive at UCR with no previous knowledge of ethnicity; others may have personal
experience of ethnicity. Both will have much to gain from an academically
rigorous analysis of the relationship between ethnic minorities and the national
culture.”
Perhaps the most ambitious curriculum reform in California has come from our
neighbor, Stanford University. Defining new boundaries for the development of a
common core of understanding about the U.S. society, the Committee on
Undergraduate Studies of its faculty Senate unanimously recommended the
incorporation of works by women, minorities, and non-Western intellectuals into
the current requirement. “It is just as important as in the past for students to gain
a knowledge of the deep roots of our American culture in western European
intellectual history, but it is increasingly important for them to appreciate factors
in the development of the uniqueness of American culture,” the committee
reported. According to Provost James Rosse, the proposal requires that each
approved year-long course: a) study the works of at least one of the European
cluster of cultures; b) study the works of at least one of the non-European
cultures that have become components of our diverse American society; c)
incorporate a substantial historical dimension; and d) focus on primary works,
written and otherwise.
In Other States
Outside of California, a cultural pluralism or ethnic studies graduation
requirement can be found at many colleges and universities. A systematic survey
would have to be done to determine how many. But the institutions with a
requirement in place include Washington State University, Indiana University, and
the University of Minnesota.
The “Cultural Pluralism Requirement” for the University of Minnesota states:
“Candidates for the Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Individualized Studies who
enter the College after the fall of 1986 will complete at least two courses (at least
37
eight credits) in U.S. cultural pluralism. Courses approved to meet the
requirement must satisfy three criteria: (1) primary focus on any of the four
following American cultures: Afro-American, American Indian, Asian American, or
Chicano; (2) incorporation and significant attention in course content and
analysis to the other significant social factors in those cultures, such as social
class, gender, age, sexuality, and the like: (3) incorporation and significant
attention in course material and analysis to the concepts of race, ethnicity,
ethnocentrism, and racism.”
Currently at least two leading national universities are considering instituting an
ethnic studies graduation requirement. In its report, “The American University
and the Pluralist Ideal” (May 1986), the Visiting Committee on Minority Life and
Education at Brown University, which was appointed by President Howard
Swearer, presented as one of its major recommendations: “We recommend that
the faculty give formal consideration to a graduation requirement in ethnic and
Third World studies. Other colleges and universities have installed such a
requirement out of the conviction that the contemporary definition of an educated
person must include at least minimal awareness of multicultural reality.”
In “The Madison Plan,” a report issued by the Chancellor of the University of
Wisconsin, February 9, 1988, the Chancellor stated: An Ethnic Studies credit
requirement has two purposes. One is to make students able to recognize,
understand, and appreciate cultural differences throughout this country and the
world. Another purpose is to learn about the contributions of the many ethnic and
racial groups within our society. Every student needs to know much more about
the origins and history of the particular cultures which, as Americans, we will
encounter during our lives...This requirement should be seen as part of the
general breadth requirement that encourages students to explore the curriculum
outside their area of major interest.
Conclusion
In summary, it is clear from the above that colleges and universities throughout
the country are seriously addressing the need for a requirement that would
enable students to develop a more informed understanding of the racial and
cultural diversity of U.S. society. They view it as an essential responsibility of
their educational mission. Significantly, the recommendations for a requirement
come from respected committees and high administrative offices within
institutions. UC Berkeley is uniquely positioned to give national educational
leadership on this crucial issue.
Appendix B: Existing Graduation Requirements in the University, Schools and
Colleges
(not included here)
38
Appendix C: Summaries of Possible American Cultures Courses (abridged)
Afro-American Studies:
Ethnic and Racial Succession in Urban Politics, Charles Henry
Anthropology:
American Folklore, Alan Dundes
American Material Culture, James Deetz
Education in a Plural Society: Ethnicity, Race, and Schooling in the US, John Ogbu
Religion in America, William Simmons
Architecture:
Housing Patterns for Different Subcultures, Sara Ishikawa
Conservation and Resource Studies:
California Environmental History and Culture, Carolyn Merchant
Economics:
The Economics of Racial Inequality, Michael Reich
Education:
Going to School in America, Carol Stack and Jean Lave
Language, Culture, Ethnicity and American Schools, L.W. Fillmore
English:
American Literature, 1820–1865
Ethnic American Autobiography, Genaro Padilla
California Literature, Genaro Padilla
Women of Color in the US: Race, Class, Gender, and Writing, Susan Schweik
Publishing Subcultures in the US: A WW II Case Study, Susan Schweik
Narratives of Self-Formation in Minority Writing, Elizabeth Abel, Abdul JanMohamed,
and David Lloyd
Ethnic Studies:
Politics and People of Color, Carlos Muñoz
US and Third World Women Writers, Norma Alarcón
Social Inequality in America: A Comparative Historical Perspective, Ronald Takaki
Women of Color in the US—“Our Lives, Our Stories: Tools for Building Coalitions, Lula
Fragd
Geography:
California, Richard Walker
39
History:
The Repeopling of America, Jon Gjerde
California, James Gregory
Journalism: News and Culture: American Journalism and Its Public, Thomas Leonard
Linguistics:
The American Languages, Leanne Hinton
Music:
Ethnic Identity from a Musical Perspective, Bonnie Wade
Social Welfare:
Social Work Practice and Minority Families and Children, J.T. Gibbs
Sociology:
Racial Change: The Last Generation, Robert Blauner
Race and Ethnic Relations in the US, Tomás Almaguer
Comparative Population Histories of the US, Russell Thornton
Women’s Studies:
Poverty and Progress: Race, Gender, and Dependency, Carol Stack
Appendix D: Consultation with students, faculty, administrators
Our formal deliberations, which began in late Fall 1987, included an open
meeting in Spring 1988 with students and the leaders of five student
organizations:
1 Michael Stoll, African Students Association
2 Julie Chang, Asian Student Union, and ASUC Executive Vice President
3 Alfonso Salazar, Co-Chair, Berkeley MEChA
4 Matthew Denn, President of the ASUC
5 Marcella King-Ben, American Indian Student Association
We met with:
• The Vice Chancellor Roderic Park
• Professor William Banks, Faculty Assistant to the Vice Chancellor
• Professor Jacob Lubliner, Chair of the Committee on Educational Policy.
Chair Simmons consulted on several occasions with the CEP and with the chairs
of the committees of the Academic Senate. Chair Simmons also consulted with:
• Professor Edwin Epstein, Chair of the Academic Senate
• Professor Eric Sundquist, member of CEP and Chair of the sub-committee to
oversee the American History and Institutions requirement
40
•
•
•
•
•
•
Professor Troy Duster, Chair of Sociology
Dr. Donald Billingsly, Dean of Student Life
Professor Charles Henry, Chair of Afro-American Studies
Professor Alex Saragoza, Chair of Ethnic Studies
Professor Clara Sue Kidwell, Associate Dean of the Graduate Division
Professors Barbara Christian, Terry Wilson, Kenneth Jowitt, Ronald Takaki,
Carlos Munoz, and William Ellis.
The Special Committee considered several submissions and memoranda from
concerned faculty and student groups, and consulted other relevant materials
(such as Elberg 1986, and Smelser 1986, and various responses) and reports,
including the Report on Programs and Courses within the University of California
Related to Ethnic Groups in Response to ACR 71.
On April 22, 1988, we met with interested faculty members at an open workshop
to discuss the April 11, 1988, proposal. This proposal was discussed again at
great length at the May 10, 1988, Academic Senate meeting.
The Committee continued its weekly meetings through the summer, during which
time we consulted with:
• Professor John Heilbron, Chair of the Academic Senate
• Professors Lubliner, Middlekauff, and Saragoza
• The Vice Chancellor Roderic Park
• Numerous students.
Professor William Shack was unable to continue as a committee member after
May 10, and was replaced by Professor Charles Henry.
In Fall 1988, in addition to continuing our weekly meetings, we convened two
workshops for faculty members interested in learning more about the
committee’s work and in teaching prospective American Cultures courses
(October 18, December 6).
We also met with student representatives of:
• The African Students Association
• Berkeley MEChA
• The Asian Student Union
• The American Indian Student Association
• The ASUC, including Jeff Chang, ASUC President, and Valli Israels, Academic
Affairs Vice President of the ASUC.
In December 1988, we sent a questionnaire to all members of the Academic
Senate to ask for their comments upon the old proposal and suggestions for a
new one. We received 147 replies, which were very informative.
41
In the Spring 1989 semester, we continued to talk with:
• Students
• Senate Chair John Heilbron
• Harry Bingham, Chair of CEP
• The Vice Chancellor Roderic Park
• Chancellor Michael Heyman.
Other faculty members who met with individual members of the Committee or
who contributed valuable advice include Professors:
• Robion Kirby
• Bernard Gifford
• Kenneth Jowitt
• Austin Ranney
• Troy Duster
• Christina Maslach
• Ronald Takaki
• Acting Vice Chancellor, William Banks.
Barbara Davis, Director of the Office of Educational Development, was helpful
with planning the above mentioned workshops. Numerous faculty members and
students wrote to the committee with particular concerns and suggestions—all of
which helped us to take better measure of what students and faculty were
thinking about the issue. The ASUC and Academic Affairs Office sponsored a
debate on February 28, 1989, which provided the Committee with a major
occasion to test its ideas and hear arguments for and against its almostcompleted proposal.
END OF REPORT
42